This probably has been answered before but being fairly new here I’m going to ask.Its not about space mouse but if he wants to answer gr8.
If we are talking the scales of n compaired to ho and use an 4x8 foot layout as exemple .What I am asking is if we use ho first what size would n scale (the same layout)take for space? Then if we reverse it and use n scale loyout on the 4x8 what size would the ho take up for same layout? Hope I made my question understandable.
slow train Ed
HO is 1:87 and N is 1:160. This means 1 real foot would be 87 feet in HO and 160 feet in N so:
A 4x8 HO layout would be 348x696 HO scale feet.
To get that same footage in N Scale feet would need a layout space of 2.175x4.35 real feet.
Reversing it, a 4x8 in N-scale would blow up to be an HO layout space of 7.36x14.7 real feet.
In other words N-scale is just slightly larger than 1/2 of HO scale. It is easier to expand an N-scale layout into an HO space twice the size than vice-versa.
N scale is, for all intents and purposes, half the scale size of HO. So, an HO scale layout on a 4X8 would need only 2X4. Going up in scale, a 2X4 N scale layout will need 4X8 in HO.
That’s the quick and dirty. Not so fast, though. Just because a given set of rolling stock and an engine configuration in HO works on the HO trackplan, it does not necessarily mean you’ll get the same smooth running scaling it all down to half with the same items running in N. You may find that the N-scale stuff needs slightly larger curves, for example…then again, a test and some research should keep you from having problems as a surprise. It could very well be, too, that just because things work on an N scale trackplan, they may not work well in HO. So, it depends on the make and model.
Thank you two for the replys.Now I got a better idea of what everyone is compairing in ho and n scales.
slow train Ed
Right, linear dimensions are about half of HO in N scale. But the area of the ‘same’ layout is about one quarter. (For the 4x8, 32 square feet in HO, 2x4, 8 sqare feet in N.) For practical purposes the difference is really not quite as big, since the 1:1 scale people still take up space, whether in aisles or around the perimeter.
Here is the hot smokin’ dope:
Keep in mind that the ratio factor for N Scale and HO Scale is not exactly a 2:1 factor; N Scale is actually 54.43% the size of HO Scale - HO Scale is 183.73% the size of N Scale; for what it’s worth the precise ratio is 3:5.5118.
If you have a 4 X 8 HO Scale layout you could duplicate that layout in N Scale in a 2.18 X 4.36 foot space.
If you have a 4 X 8 N Scale layout you would need a platform 7.35 feet by 14.70 feet for an HO layout - there is a caveat here, however; that 7.35 feet side is an unworkable dimension because, unless you are ten feet tall with 44 inch long arms you are going to need some sort of open area in the middle for access and that reduces the geometric area of your HO Scale layout.
Here’s my take on it if anyone cares. Let’s assume that HO is twice the size of N. Then the linear measurement will double,the area will be squared and the volume will be cubed.
HO snap track is 18", N scale snap track is 9 inch standard. Just use the double/half idea it’ll work out, some adjustments may be required to fit things in.
And now for the skunk at the garden party!
You can take an N scale plan, double everything and build it in HO. It won’t make the best use of your space.
You CANNOT take a non-island HO plan and shrink it uniformly to build it in N.
Models scale, modelers don’t. If that HO plan is designed with a 30 inch aisleway, you had better keep it wider than 15 inches unless you and all your friends have physiques like stick drawings! OTOH, if the N plan has 30 inch aisleways, you’ll end up with a nice, comfortable 5-footer to wander around in (and heat, and cool, and vacuum, and…)
I don’t know about most of you, but I don’t have that much space - even in a double garage.
Chuck [modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in twice-N (1:80, aka HOj)]
So that we dont’ confuse this gentleman, if he is talking about converting a simple 4X8’ sheet of plywood in HO to an equivalent N-scale, he can indeed do it on something near half of what the original sheet of plywood was in HO…as I said at the outset. He merely has to do a proving track plan before he begins to glue and scenic everything down. He needs to construct any grades, place any curves, and actually test what he intends to run around this temporary construction…both directions, and in reverse, please. Once he is confident that his reduced footprint, with all its intricacies, actually works, he can apply it more permanently.
Chuck is correct about scaling the actual surroundings and bench if it was something like a square or a rectangle where one ducks under the front of the layout to get to a central operating pit. Understandably, you can’t take a 6X10 in HO and reduce it to the same operating scheme in N with a 3X5 because there would be no room for the central pit accessed via a duckunder.
Simply, figure on half if the layout is a simple slab, but mock it up and check that what you are running as trains will actually work on the half-scale. Then build and play with the proven trackplan.
The wrinkle here is that if you’re using Atlas snap track, the HO track is 18" radius, while the equivelent N track is 9.75". And not all brands of sectional track follow a standard geometry. (Things such as turnout length, numbered vs. curve through frog, etc., curve sections, etc.)
Absolutely. There’s no way you can just take a section al plan and just scale it as a sectional plan. There would certainly be adjustments to be made.
But, my understanding was that the original poster just wanted to know the general difference in scale, not that he was trying to adopt a specific plan directly. If course, I could be wrong!
I found a neat 4x8 HO layout plan in MR from the 1960’s and thought I could reduce it to 2.5x5 since the text said it would be 2x4 in N scale. I couldn’t do it. Track wouldn’t fit. It actually took 32"x66" to fit the same track plan. Grades were the problem; this was an over/under track plan. A flatland plan would come closer to fitting in half the space.
The N scale equivalent of HO’s 18" radius is 12". These are both about the practical minimums that typical engines will negotiate without problems. This makes the turnaround table width for HO about 42" and the table width for N about 30". It is usually TABLE WIDTH that determines a LOT about a layout’s maximum human reach required and what space it will occupy.
If you just have your track go straight through with no turnaround, then there is very little differerence in space requirement.
For rough comparison use the the 1/2 rule. For a good discussion on the subject find a copy of “John Armstrong on Creative Layout Design”. Sadly, it’s out of print. It’s the second best book on the subject after “Track Planning for Realistic Operation” also by John Armstrong.
Enjoy
Paul